The approach used should be analyzed based on his literacy level which should also have been established prior to the judgment. This is an indication of how committed he was towards ensuring that he had done the crime. Probably he could have done the crime without much an effort in case he came across the identity from a lost and found board or even from dirt bins (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2005). The social status of victims of this crime, for example the young, old, women, the illiterate or the elite, can be an indicator of his level of crime.
Furthermore, it is important to establish whether he used an hi-tech method or a crude approach in order to establish whether he is a threat to the existing intelligence mechanisms. This also could serve as an excellent point for judging the level of his crime. As a way of letting the intelligence and security agencies comprehend the plot well, it is essential to question the way the culprit was planning to earn from this impersonification in case he was not arrested.
Most importantly, a judge should track this culprit for any related crime record. This can give a clue on the kind of sentence he must get especially if a related or even a similar crime has been tracked (May, Minor, & Mathews, 2007). To the expectation of many a people in the court chambers, a judge is expected to professionally give out his rulings without taking sides, and any attempt to judge otherwise may do more harm than good to him because most people understand the law pretty well.
With a well laid down legal framework and clear outline on how to make judgments under different crime circumstances, it is only wise for the judge to apply legal philosophies. Depending on how the person before the court responds to the investigative questions placed before him by prosecutor, judge is expected to make a just ruling. An acceptable retribution may include a jail sentence between three to above five years with well over three year jail serve a mandatory. However, the exact jail term will be determined by the judges opinion about the seriousness of the crime.
Ordering the use of the culprits identity by those he wronged to obtain money, which may sound the correct pay for the wrong done, is a direct contradiction of the law to itself because the same law will be used to judge this new lot of offender. If this was his first offense of its kind, jail sentence can sufficiently deter the offender from repeating this kind of crime because it separates him from his victims (May et al, 2007). This measure can last for as long as the person is behind the bars or even after he is set free, which is the expectation to the makers of this law.
But if his crime record reveals that he has made it an habit, the seriousness of this offend, as a lesson to the community and like minded people, can be shown by declaring a life imprisonment to this offender to completely eliminate his opportunity to repeat this offense. This is a sure way of hindering repetition of such social wrongs by the same offender and even offenders who were lucky not to have been brought before the law. To serve the interest and the expectation of the community, it would be alright to involve the offender in constructive community service as a way of surfacing the wrongs he had committed against the community.
This can be effected during the period of jail service or for sometime when the person is free. In case this offender was green in the field of criminology, rehabilitation effort to re-convert this person to a useful society member is highly recommended. This is safely done while serving the sentence by investigating what might have led this offender to doing the crime (Clear, et al. , 2005). It might require the joint effort of Psychologists and people who can do guidance and counseling.
Or even a thorough investigation should be done to establish whether the offender might have suffered any mental problems that might have led him to do this act. However, this can only be a recommendation at court room but the judge may have minimal influence in ensuring these are done to the benefit of the suspect, given the high limitation of public resources for this corrective measures.
Clear T. R, Cole F. G & Reisig M. D> (2005). American Corrections. United States: Thomson Wadsworth. May, D. C. , Minor, K. I, & Mathews B. A. (2007). Corrections and the Criminal Justice System. United